G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
ROSITA SY, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosita Sy was charged with one count of illegal recruitment and one count of estafa. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted her of illegal recruitment but convicted her of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the estafa conviction with a modification to the penalty. The Information for estafa alleged that in March 1997, in Las Piñas City, Sy defrauded Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro by falsely pretending she could deploy her for employment in Taiwan, thereby inducing Felicidad to give her ₱120,000.00 for processing, which Sy then misappropriated.
The prosecution’s version established that Sy, accompanied by Corazon Miranda, went to Felicidad’s house in Batangas to convince her to work in Taiwan, promising a good salary and a yearly vacation. Felicidad agreed and subsequently paid Sy ₱60,000.00 at Sy’s residence in Las Piñas, and another ₱60,000.00 days later, with no receipts issued. Sy then facilitated the procurement of falsified documents, including a birth certificate in the name of “Armida Lim,” and brought Felicidad to the Bureau of Immigration where Felicidad, posing as Armida Lim, applied for an Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Registration. The documents were later rejected by Taiwanese authorities.
Sy’s defense denied offering a job or receiving money. She claimed Felicidad and Corazon approached her for help in obtaining a Chinese ACR and ICR, and she merely introduced them to a certain Amelia Lim, who received ₱60,000.00 from Felicidad for the use of her sister Armida Lim’s identity.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Rosita Sy should be held liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for estafa. All elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) were present: (1) Sy made false pretenses and fraudulent representations that she had the power and capacity to deploy Felicidad for employment in Taiwan; (2) these false pretenses were made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) Felicidad relied on these representations and was induced to part with her money; and (4) Felicidad suffered damage as the promised employment did not materialize and her money was not recovered. The Court held that Felicidad’s participation in processing illegal documents did not exculpate Sy, as she was a victim forced to do so after having paid the money. Sy’s acquittal in the separate illegal recruitment case did not bar her conviction for estafa, as they are distinct offenses; illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se. The penalty was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the incremental penalty rule for estafa, considering the amount defrauded exceeded ₱22,000.00.